The Brave and the Willing

Posted on 07.13.2018

The Brave and the Willing

This past week the world witnessed a feat of tremendous and selfless heroism as members of Thailand’s Navy SEALs continuously risked their lives designing, provisioning and implementing the escape of twelve young soccer players and their coach from a water filled cave.

They faced a uniquely diverse set of logistical and physical problems as the boys were sequestered in an air pocket that could be reached only through rugged, water filled, narrow passageways and there was the ever-present threat of more rain that could flood the cave, taking away even the small area of refuge the boys waited in.

Some of the boys couldn’t even swim and they would have to quickly adapt to breathing through a mask and pass through dark waters without panicking or losing their nerve.

One SEAL died during the operation when he ran out of oxygen.

Well, we all know the outcome. Thanks to the prayers of people around the world and the efforts of brave, tenacious men, all thirteen were rescued.

It takes a special breed to face the kind of danger these men faced, nerves of steel, an indomitable spirit and a singular kind of discipline that allows one to face down danger without flinching or giving up.

The kind that prompts firemen to run into a burning New York skyscraper that is about to collapse.

The kind that it takes for a policeman to hurry into a dangerous situation against whatever unknown odds they will have to face.

The kind that inspires a soldier to be the last to leave an outnumbered battle situation, staying to cover the retreat of his brothers in arms.

That kind of courage is rare and is found mostly among those who stand between us and those enemies and those things that would do is harm.

When we see the television coverage of a wildfire burning out of control and see the planes flying over dropping fire retardant on the inferno below we seldom think about the kind of air they are flying through, the heat creating updrafts, downdrafts, wind shear and all manner of dangerous air pockets and crosswinds that means the pilot takes his life in his hands every time he flies over a fire site.

Or the personnel on the ground going perilously close to the fire and always in danger of being closed in and cut off from safety if the wind changes and the fire heads in another direction.

And the so often unsung heroes of the United States Coast Guard who man the boats, planes and helicopters that search for and rescue those adrift in the oceans, defying high seas and heavy weather to do it.

On Tuesday, June 6, 1944, D-Day, landing craft began arriving on the beaches of Normandy and soldiers ran ashore straight into the teeth of Nazi machine gun fire, many never making it past the shoreline.

And yet, on they came, wave after wave, determined young men from Omaha and Baxley and Albuquerque and Cleveland, young heroes from all over America storming the beaches of a place they had never been, to make sure that no swastika or any other foreign flag would ever fly above their beloved United States of America.

Between the dead and wounded there were ten thousand allied casualties and the heart of America broke that day, but the power of Hitler’s Nazis was broken also and these young men and the price they paid should never, and will never, be forgotten as long as one patriot lives and breathes.

We should treasure and honor those who put their lives on the line for us, we should value their service and be thankful to God for creating men and women who possess this rare brand of courage, fortitude and sense of duty.

Speaking for myself and my family I want to sincerely thank the firemen, the policemen, the EMT folks, and all those in every branch of military service who keep the enemy at bay and the American Dream very much alive.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

— Charlie Daniels

PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU POST

Feel free to comment on Charlie's soapboxes, but please refrain from profanity and anonymous posts are not allowed, we need a name and you MUST provide a valid email address. If you provide an email address, but leave the name as "Anonymous" we will pick a name for you based on your email address. No one other than website administrators will see your email address, not other posters. If you post without a valid email address, your comment (whether positive or negative) will be deleted. — TeamCDB

Comments

Presidents

It would be nice to have a president, Democrat or Republican, who did not get a deferment to avoid service. A president who understands the value of that service could lead this country more effectively than those who found ways to avoid it.
Posted by dana

God Bless Them

Amen, Amem & Amen Charlie may God Bless each and every one of them. As for me and my family I join you in say a heartfelt THANK YOU to each and everyone of them and their families for the sacrifices that they have and continue to make everyday keeping America safe and great. nuff said God Bless Plowboy
Posted by Plowboy

Thank You

Great posts as usual from Charlie and Plowboy but the first poster Dana disgusting and thoughtless.
Posted by Robert

Danas President

Greetings Dana, your point is noted, however I believe that Jimmy Carter was our last President with military service, as a person I can say nothing bad about Jimmy, however as a president he ranks almost as low as Obama, remember the Russian Grain Embargo January 1980. FDR was a great president with no military service, and Donald Trump's admiration, commitment and dedication to the US Military is unmatched in recent history. Our next president Mike Pence was to young for the draft and all that will follow him will have the same issue as far as deferments. God Bless, remember the Alamo and the USS Pueblo, Plowboy
Posted by Plowboy

Sigh...

1. Military service is no guarantee of anything but it would help 2. Bone spurs and polio are different. One is a disabling disease, the other is a joke for late night comedians. 3. You do not need to be drafted to serve in the military. 4. George W. Bush served in the National Guard. George H. W. Bush served in the US Navy.
Posted by Dana

Thank you brave heroes!

What a reminder to keep those courageous people close to our hearts! Beautiful.
Posted by Kathleen

In-deed

I'd like to associate myself with the passion and prayers of your remarks. Beautiful tribute. Truly America is blessed by these heroes. However, I saw Congressman Cohen in the Strzock hearing tell him that he deserved a Purple Heart for what he' been through. Oh, do not diminish the valor and honor of that sacrifice. He should know better. And Peter Strzoch should have refused that label, but he didn't. Says a lot. God Bless America -- she's the only one there is.
Posted by Jeff

Amen

Amen, amen,amen. God bless the men and women who keep us free
Posted by Tad

Ronald Reagan/Vietnam

I should note also that Ronald Reagan served in the army. His poor eyesight prevented him from serving overseas but did not prevent him from enlisting and rising to the rank of captain. Vietnam veterans have often had their service turned against them as with John McCain and John Kerry. It is a generation that has lost its way that would treat veterans with such contempt.
Posted by Dana

But wrong example V/V

Sorry to the Ronald Reagan/ Vietnam vets example above, applying it to John McCain and John Kerry. Shame, both of those were welcomed as heroes not condemned. Bad analogy. McCain enjoyed the hero welcome. Kerry made his career on protesting..... other vets. But I never hear either of them reference the travesty that the anti-war, a left movement (and Dems) propelled.
Posted by Jeff

to Jeff

From Politifact: In 2000, McCain was targeted by false charges that he had fathered a black child. (The truth was he and his wife had adopted a girl from Bangladesh.) This time, on the eve of the 2008 South Carolina Republican primary, a group that calls itself Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain has distributed a flyer alleging that McCain, widely regarded as a hero for his five years as a prisoner of war, is a traitor. The flyer says that when he was a POW, McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy. From a news item: Donald Trump criticizes military veteran and Senator John McCain, saying, "He's not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured." In an interview with Howard Stern, Mr Trump alluded to not having fought in Vietnam by joking that his sex life was his “own personal Vietnam”. “I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world,” Mr Trump told Stern in a conversation about avoiding avoiding STDs. “It is a dangerous world out there. It’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.” From Wikipedia: "Swift Boating" Since the 2004 election, the term "Swift Boating" (or "swiftboating") has become a common expression for a campaign attacking opponents by questioning their credibility and patriotism in a dishonest manner. The term is most often used with the pejorative meaning of a smear campaign. Jeff: "But I never hear either of them reference the travesty that the anti-war, a left movement (and Dems) propelled." Democrats began the Vietnam War. Democrats also opposed it. There were Republicans who supported the war and Republicans who opposed it. Political parties in the 1960s were not the polarized enterprises they have now become. My point remains that the country treats Vietnam veterans very poorly while elevating folks who did everything they could to avoid military service to high government office.
Posted by dana

To Dana - 2

McCain: well, name a prez candidate that never had a wild accusation against them. Comes with the turf. But there are grounds for questions on his record in and more importantly after service. His efforts on MIA/POW’s too. The Keating Five scandal involved McCain. He can’t be immune from criticism simply because he served. That is what the left demands. It was other vets who criticized both McCain and Kerry – for obvious reasons. Remember the stories Dan Rather promoted on Bush, (a lie) to torpedo his candidacy. There were stories about #41 Bush too – an undisputed hero. Oliver North was a target of attacks. Obama did not serve, nor did Clinton, but it wasn’t held against them. Why did you not attack them? Both arguably undermined our military + readiness. Obama turned Bowe Bergdahl into a hero, or tried. Then he traded five detainee terrorists for him. Obama put on a Rose Garden show. Media and the left went after Gen. McInerney. Gen Colin Powell was demonized and vilified. The survivors of Benghazi were called liars and attacked. Remember the American sniper, Navy Seal Chris Kyle, was viciously attacked. Hillary called the mother of a Benghazi victim a liar. The list is long on who’s been attacked by the left. And it was the left’s anti-vet protests in the 60-70’s that paved the road. Families of soldiers were sought out, protested and attacked then. (just like the left attacks political enemies today) In fact, the left attacks military all the more for who they are. They were called disgraced Generals all who supported Trump. And CIA station chiefs were outed under Obama. Military brass was ousted. Rather tried to stand on his lies. Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. No apologies ever for any of it. - Jeff
Posted by Jeff

Sorry to Repeat Myself

Service in Vietnam is treated like some sort of crime. If as you claim Oliver North was attacked for honorable service in Vietnam which sounded pretty heroic to me then that goes a long way towards proving my point. Vietnam veterans are not well-treated either by the left or the right. How you missed this point I do not know because I thought it was pretty clear. As far as criticizing Trump, I did not. I quoted him word for word with no interpretation or distortion of what he said. And here again , "My point remains that the country treats Vietnam veterans very poorly while elevating folks who did everything they could to avoid military service to high government office." I did not exclude Obama, Clinton, or Donald Trump from that consideration. Nor is anyone is above criticism simply because they served in the military. Otherwise, what can we say about Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman or soldiers who were court martialed for dishonorable service? I think you should read what I write before crafting a response.
Posted by dana

One mistake

Obama was too young to serve in Vietnam so, yes, he is free from criticism about avoiding service there unlike the folks who got 4 or more deferments to avoid any kind of military service.
Posted by dana

One Mistake - Dana

Dana: “Service in Vietnam is treated like some sort of crime.” You "repeat yourself," yet you never mentioned Vietnam in your first post. But I did get the intended gist. Don’t tell me it was the same treatment from right and left. I’m glad then you are calling out John Kerry for what essentially started his political career. About time. “Vietnam veterans are not well-treated either by the left or the right. How you missed this point I do not know because I thought it was pretty clear.” But we clearly have differing views of history. The ’68 Dem convention was another case point indictment in the era. It just was not the same treatment from both sides. Just as those comments to and treatment of returning soldiers was not the same as criticism of McNamara either. We all know full well Obama’s age. I used as Clinton and Obama as examples with no service history. My points on the whole context of the era are still my own, regardless, though you clearly have your political axe to grind. You can have your view. Soldiers and families were chastised even for wearing uniforms. It was obvious then and now, which side. Even some organizers, on the Left, had thought it was not out it was not a unifying, endearing tactic they were employing by lashing out at returning vets. What Trump did is his biz I'm not privy to, but at the time many were turned into heroes by the left for avoiding the draft. Though he doesn't demonstrate an animus across the military.
Posted by Jeff

Followup to Dana

An addendum: In your second post "Sigh" you argued that ...."3. You do not need to be drafted to serve in the military. 4. George W. Bush served in the National Guard. George H. W. Bush served in the US Navy. " So you were not only talking about serving under the draft.
Posted by Jeff

Beating a dead horse

Jeff- my first comment expressed my opinion that military service was of benefit, not that people with military experience were above criticism or that people without military experience were not fit to lead. I take it you have conflated criticism of the Vietnam War with criticism of the troops who fought it, and again Vietnam service is treated like a crime. If you want to blame the attacks on McCain’s and Lerry’s service on the left, good luck.
Posted by Dana

The Dead Horse lives -- Dana

Dana, I’ll try to make this clear. You were the one conflating (or trying to) criticism of Vietnam leadership, and strategies thereof, with criticism of the soldiers themselves when they returned. They were called baby-killers for Pete’s sake, trained assassins and killers. It was not both sides, Democrat and Republican, criticizing soldiers. That is just revision. We knew who was and Leftists used that as a political organizing tool to do it. Sure many criticized Mac and the strategy at large, which is what I said. The left politicized it to the max. Though I did not serve at all, I knew many that did who returned. I heard many recollections that will always be with me. I did not know their politics – if they even had any – and still don’t. It was not an issue at all. A good many of those committed suicide. I can’t speak to why they did but it was not over politics. And they were largely embraced in the community before they did. However, they were chastised by leftists. I saw it and they felt it. When you admit they were treated criminally, yes they were. But it was NOT across the great bipartisan divide. Criticism of Vietnam itself was a 20/20 hindsight thing pols always do. But vets, MIAs, POWs et al were vilified. McCain was not much help to any of them and Kerry roundly attacked fellow soldiers that served. Other vets knew that on both accounts. Criticizing soldiers was one offense, and another was politicizing them. I couldn't believe anyone was willing to do that.
Posted by Jeff

Politics of Dead Horses - Dana

The Left eventually did find a subsequent use for returning vets. They wanted to recruit them into the greater anti-war movement (as they described it) as spokespersons --- or their family members. Kerry could be an Exhibit A example. Better to have them condemn Vietnam and other soldiers. And that was very much a political movement as well. Thanks to Leftists.
Posted by Jeff

Vietnam

To Dana, We did have a president who served with great honor, Eisenhower in War II. My brother served in Vietnam. Did not wait for draft. He joined the Marines. When he came home, the leftists, who are usually organized Communist groups, were the ones who spit on and blamed my brother for "baby killing". Kerry made accusations that never happened and he had no idea what the other soldiers were doing since he was on a Swiftboat. He was not on land with the troops to see any action. Actually he never saw any action, only serving 3 months, then wounded himself so he could get out. McCain never did anything to help the Vets, but McCain is not a Republican. He should be in the Democrat party because that is who he usually sides with. You might want to read "Unfit To Command" which is a first hand account of what Kerry did while serving on a swift-boat. It would open your eyes to what he truly was, a traitor.
Posted by Pat

To Jeff

When you want to actually discuss what I wrote, let me know.
Posted by Dana

To Pat

Sorry, I do not read much fiction these days. Incidentally, where did Jerome Corsi perform his military service?
Posted by Dana

Two-way highway

Dana: “I think you should read what I write before crafting a response.” … “When you want to actually discuss what I wrote, let me know.” Dana: 1)“It would be nice to have a president, Democrat or Republican, who did not get a deferment to avoid service. A president who understands the value of that service could lead this country MORE EFFECTIVELY than those who found ways to avoid it.” (Emphasis mine) Dana: 2)“Jeff- my first comment expressed my opinion that military service was of benefit, not that people with military experience were above criticism or that people WITHOUT MILITARY EXPERIENCE were not fit to lead.” Maybe you should get your talking “points” straight. Now you do want it both ways, don’t you? We could have had those with “service” who I’d say are not a good fit at all. McCain and Kerry being but two. Mostly because they feel they deserve it and it’s their turn. Kerry wanted to anchor our decisions to UN declaration. McCain thought the press would carry his water. You seem to relish them both, as if they got short changed. Incidentally, you said Vietnam Vets were treated as criminals. I replied on that. And you said“Political parties in the 1960s were not the polarized enterprises they have now become.” But ‘68 sort of disproves that, riots and all, a pinnacle of polarization. Why I mentioned the '68 Dem convention.
Posted by Jeff

To jeff

Suggesting that someone might lead more effectively with experience is not the same as suggesting that a person without military experience is not fit to lead. I certainly do not believe that persons using minor medical conditions to avoid service are fit to be president. You might want to read a little more about the election of 1968 since it is clear you know nothing about it.
Posted by Dana

To Dana

I guess your assumptions and accusation would be wrong. I do know something about the '68 election and Democrat convention. But I'm glad you Googled it anyway for starters. (i.e talking points won't work) And I remain confident that anecdotal career accolades of McCain or Kerry do not make presidential timber between them.
Posted by Jeff

Not quite

Kerry and McCain were attacked for honorable service in Vietnam. I suppose it is not something you care about because you were not going to vote for them anyway. I am old enough to remember the 1968. No special merit to being that old but I do know when someone is talking out of their hat.
Posted by Dana

Back

Soap Box